-
International Journal of Gynaecology... Mar 2016Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) stage 2-3 is a premalignant lesion that can progress to cervical cancer in 10-20 years if untreated. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) stage 2-3 is a premalignant lesion that can progress to cervical cancer in 10-20 years if untreated.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct systematic reviews of randomized and nonrandomized studies for effects of cryotherapy, loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), and cold knife conization (CKC) as treatment for CIN 2-3.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Medline, Embase, and other databases were searched to February 2012 for benefits, and to July 2012 for harms. Additionally, experts were contacted. Keywords for CIN, cervical cancer, and the treatments were used.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies of nonpregnant women 18 years or older not previously treated for CIN were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two investigators independently screened and collected data. Relative risks and proportions were calculated and evidence assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS
Recurrence rate was 5.3% 12 months after cryotherapy or LEEP, and 1.4% after CKC. There seemed to be little or no differences in frequency of complications after LEEP or cryotherapy, but they occurred more often after CKC. Evidence suggests premature delivery is most common with CKC, but it also occurs after LEEP and cryotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite a comprehensive search, there is very low quality evidence and often no evidence for important outcomes, including reproductive outcomes and complications. Studies assessing these outcomes are needed.
Topics: Conization; Cryotherapy; Electrosurgery; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Staging; Postoperative Complications; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; World Health Organization; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 26643302
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.07.026 -
International Journal of Cancer Jul 2017A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the estimates of and definitions for human papillomavirus (HPV) persistence in women following treatment... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the estimates of and definitions for human papillomavirus (HPV) persistence in women following treatment of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN). A total of 45 studies presented data on post-treatment HPV persistence among 6,106 women. Most studies assessed HPV persistence after loop excision (42%), followed by conization (7%), cryotherapy (11%), laser treatment (4%), interferon-alpha, therapeutic vaccination, and photodynamic therapy (2% each) and mixed treatment (38%). Baseline HPV testing was conducted before or at treatment for most studies (96%). Follow-up HPV testing ranged from 1.5 to 80 months after baseline. Median HPV persistence tended to decrease with increasing follow-up time, declining from 27% at 3 months after treatment to 21% at 6 months, 15% at 12 months, and 10% at 24 months. Post-treatment HPV persistence estimates varied widely and were influenced by patient age, HPV-type, detection method, treatment method, and minimum HPV post-treatment testing interval. Loop excision and conization appeared to outperform cryotherapy procedures in terms of their ability to clear HPV infection. This systematic review provides evidence for the substantial heterogeneity in post-treatment HPV DNA testing practices and persistence estimates.
Topics: Female; Human Papillomavirus DNA Tests; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Photochemotherapy; Risk Factors; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 28124442
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30623 -
Viruses Jan 2022In 2014 and 2021, two nucleic-acid vaccine candidates named MAV E2 and VGX-3100 completed phase III clinical trials in Mexico and U.S., respectively, for patients with... (Review)
Review
In 2014 and 2021, two nucleic-acid vaccine candidates named MAV E2 and VGX-3100 completed phase III clinical trials in Mexico and U.S., respectively, for patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-related, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). These well-tolerated but still unlicensed vaccines encode distinct HPV antigens (E2 versus E6+E7) to elicit cell-mediated immune responses; their clinical efficacy, as measured by HSIL regression or cure, was modest when compared with placebo or surgery (conization), but both proved highly effective in clearing HPV infection, which should help further optimize strategies for enhancing vaccine immunogenicity, toward an ultimate goal of preventing malignancies in millions of patients who are living with persistent, oncogenic HPV infection but are not expected to benefit from current, prophylactic vaccines. The major roadblocks to a highly efficacious and practical product remain challenging and can be classified into five categories: (i) getting the vaccines into the right cells for efficient expression and presentation of HPV antigens (fusion proteins or epitopes); (ii) having adequate coverage of oncogenic HPV types, beyond the current focus on HPV-16 and -18; (iii) directing immune protection to various epithelial niches, especially anogenital mucosa and upper aerodigestive tract where HPV-transformed cells wreak havoc; (iv) establishing the time window and vaccination regimen, including dosage, interval and even combination therapy, for achieving maximum efficacy; and (v) validating therapeutic efficacy in patients with poor prognosis because of advanced, recurrent or non-resectable malignancies. Overall, the room for improvements is still large enough that continuing efforts for research and development will very likely extend into the next decade.
Topics: Animals; Cancer Vaccines; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Neoplasms; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the Cervix; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaccine Development; Vaccines, DNA; mRNA Vaccines; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 35215833
DOI: 10.3390/v14020239 -
The Lancet. Oncology Aug 2022The trade-off between comparative effectiveness and reproductive morbidity of different treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) remains unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative effectiveness and risk of preterm birth of local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage IA1 cervical cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The trade-off between comparative effectiveness and reproductive morbidity of different treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the risks of treatment failure and preterm birth associated with various treatment techniques.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting on oncological or reproductive outcomes after CIN treatments from database inception until March 9, 2022, without language restrictions. We included studies of women with CIN, glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, or stage IA1 cervical cancer treated with excision (cold knife conisation [CKC], laser conisation, and large loop excision of the transformation zone [LLETZ]) or ablation (radical diathermy, laser ablation, cold coagulation, and cryotherapy). We excluded women treated with hysterectomy. The primary outcomes were any treatment failure (defined as any abnormal histology or cytology) and preterm birth (<37 weeks of gestation). The network for preterm birth also included women with untreated CIN (untreated colposcopy group). The main reference group was LLETZ for treatment failure and the untreated colposcopy group for preterm birth. For randomised controlled trials, we extracted group-level summary data, and for observational studies, we extracted relative treatment effect estimates adjusted for potential confounders, when available, and we did random-effects network meta-analyses to obtain odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed within-study and across-study risk of bias using Cochrane tools. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018115495 and CRD42018115508.
FINDINGS
7880 potential citations were identified for the outcome of treatment failure and 4107 for the outcome of preterm birth. After screening and removal of duplicates, the network for treatment failure included 19 240 participants across 71 studies (25 randomised) and the network for preterm birth included 68 817 participants across 29 studies (two randomised). Compared with LLETZ, risk of treatment failure was reduced for other excisional methods (laser conisation: OR 0·59 [95% CI 0·44-0·79] and CKC: 0·63 [0·50-0·81]) and increased for laser ablation (1·69 [1·27-2·24]) and cryotherapy (1·84 [1·33-2·56]). No differences were found for the comparison of cold coagulation versus LLETZ (1·09 [0·68-1·74]) but direct data were based on two small studies only. Compared with the untreated colposcopy group, risk of preterm birth was increased for all excisional techniques (CKC: 2·27 [1·70-3·02]; laser conisation: 1·77 [1·29-2·43]; and LLETZ: 1·37 [1·16-1·62]), whereas no differences were found for ablative methods (laser ablation: 1·05 [0·78-1·41]; cryotherapy: 1·01 [0·35-2·92]; and cold coagulation: 0·67 [0·02-29·15]). The evidence was based mostly on observational studies with their inherent risks of bias, and the credibility of many comparisons was low.
INTERPRETATION
More radical excisional techniques reduce the risk of treatment failure but increase the risk of subsequent preterm birth. Although there is uncertainty, ablative treatments probably do not increase risk of preterm birth, but are associated with higher failure rates than excisional techniques. Although we found LLETZ to have balanced effectiveness and reproductive morbidity, treatment choice should rely on a woman's age, size and location of lesion, and future family planning.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health and Care Research: Research for Patient Benefit.
Topics: Conization; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Network Meta-Analysis; Premature Birth; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 35835138
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00334-5 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2016To assess the effect of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) on obstetric outcomes and to correlate this with cone depth and comparison group used. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effect of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) on obstetric outcomes and to correlate this with cone depth and comparison group used.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
CENTRAL, Medline, Embase from 1948 to April 2016 were searched for studies assessing obstetric outcomes in women with or without previous local cervical treatment.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Independent reviewers extracted the data and performed quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Studies were classified according to method and obstetric endpoint. Pooled risk ratios were calculated with a random effect model and inverse variance. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with I(2) statistics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Obstetric outcomes comprised preterm birth (including spontaneous and threatened), premature rupture of the membranes, chorioamnionitis, mode of delivery, length of labour, induction of delivery, oxytocin use, haemorrhage, analgesia, cervical cerclage, and cervical stenosis. Neonatal outcomes comprised low birth weight, admission to neonatal intensive care, stillbirth, APGAR scores, and perinatal mortality.
RESULTS
71 studies were included (6 338 982 participants: 65 082 treated/6 292 563 untreated). Treatment significantly increased the risk of overall (<37 weeks; 10.7% v 5.4%; relative risk 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.60 to 1.98), severe (<32-34 weeks; 3.5% v 1.4%; 2.40, 1.92 to 2.99), and extreme (<28-30 weeks; 1.0% v 0.3%; 2.54, 1.77 to 3.63) preterm birth. Techniques removing or ablating more tissue were associated with worse outcomes. Relative risks for delivery at <37 weeks were 2.70 (2.14 to 3.40) for cold knife conisation, 2.11 (1.26 to 3.54) for laser conisation, 2.02 (1.60 to 2.55) for excision not otherwise specified, 1.56 (1.36 to 1.79) for large loop excision of the transformation zone, and 1.46 (1.27 to 1.66) for ablation not otherwise specified. Compared with no treatment, the risk of preterm birth was higher in women who had undergone more than one treatment (13.2% v 4.1%; 3.78, 2.65 to 5.39) and with increasing cone depth (≤10-12 mm; 7.1% v 3.4%; 1.54, 1.09 to 2.18; ≥10-12 mm: 9.8% v 3.4%, 1.93, 1.62 to 2.31; ≥15-17 mm: 10.1% v 3.4%; 2.77, 1.95 to 3.93; ≥20 mm: 10.2% v 3.4%; 4.91, 2.06 to 11.68). The choice of comparison group affected the magnitude of effect. This was higher for external comparators, followed by internal comparators, and ultimately women with disease who did not undergo treatment. In women with untreated CIN and in pregnancies before treatment, the risk of preterm birth was higher than the risk in the general population (5.9% v 5.6%; 1.24, 1.14 to 1.35). Spontaneous preterm birth, premature rupture of the membranes, chorioamnionitis, low birth weight, admission to neonatal intensive care, and perinatal mortality were also significantly increased after treatment. :
CONCLUSIONS
Women with CIN have a higher baseline risk for prematurity. Excisional and ablative treatment further increases that risk. The frequency and severity of adverse sequelae increases with increasing cone depth and is higher for excision than for ablation.
Topics: Adult; Cervix Uteri; Conization; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Neoplastic; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Risk Factors; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 27469988
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i3633 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Feb 2020Although local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are highly effective, it has been reported that treated women remain at increased risk of cervical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Incidence and mortality from cervical cancer and other malignancies after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
BACKGROUND
Although local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are highly effective, it has been reported that treated women remain at increased risk of cervical and other cancers. Our aim is to explore the risk of developing or dying from cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus (HPV)- and non-HPV-related malignancies after CIN treatment and infer its magnitude compared with the general population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria: Studies with registry-based follow-up reporting cancer incidence or mortality after CIN treatment.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Summary effects were estimated using random-effects models.
OUTCOMES
Incidence rate of cervical cancer among women treated for CIN (per 100 000 woman-years). Relative risk (RR) of cervical cancer, other HPV-related anogenital tract cancer (vagina, vulva, anus), any cancer, and mortality, for women treated for CIN versus the general population.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies were eligible. The incidence rate for cervical cancer after CIN treatment was 39 per 100 000 woman-years (95% confidence interval 22-69). The RR of cervical cancer was elevated compared with the general population (3.30, 2.57-4.24; P < 0.001). The RR was higher for women more than 50 years old and remained elevated for at least 20 years after treatment. The RR of vaginal (10.84, 5.58-21.10; P < 0.001), vulvar (3.34, 2.39-4.67; P < 0.001), and anal cancer (5.11, 2.73-9.55; P < 0.001) was also higher. Mortality from cervical/vaginal cancer was elevated, but our estimate was more uncertain (RR 5.04, 0.69-36.94; P = 0.073).
CONCLUSIONS
Women treated for CIN have a considerably higher risk to be later diagnosed with cervical and other HPV-related cancers compared with the general population. The higher risk of cervical cancer lasts for at least 20 years after treatment and is higher for women more than 50 years of age. Prolonged follow-up beyond the last screening round may be warranted for previously treated women.
Topics: Alphapapillomavirus; Female; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Papillomavirus Infections; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 31959338
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2019.11.004 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2011Worldwide, cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women. In the UK, incidence fell after the introduction of the cervical screening programme, to the current... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Worldwide, cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women. In the UK, incidence fell after the introduction of the cervical screening programme, to the current level of approximately 2334 women in 2008, with a mortality to incidence ratio of 0.33. Survival ranges from almost 100% 5-year disease-free survival for treated stage Ia disease to 5-15% in stage IV disease. Survival is also influenced by tumour bulk, age, and comorbid conditions.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent cervical cancer? What are the effects of interventions to manage early-stage cervical cancer? What are the effects of interventions to manage bulky early-stage cervical cancer? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 14 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for preventing cervical cancer; conisation of the cervix for microinvasive carcinoma (stage Ia1), conisation of the cervix plus lymphadenectomy (stage Ia2 and low-volume, good prognostic factor stage Ib), radical trachelectomy for low-volume stage Ib disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, or different types of hysterectomy versus each other for treating early-stage and bulky early-stage cervical cancer.
Topics: Acute Disease; Chemoradiotherapy; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Hysterectomy; Incidence; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 21791123
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2021Radical hysterectomy with pelvic node dissection is the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. However, the latter can be diagnosed at a young age when... (Review)
Review
Radical hysterectomy with pelvic node dissection is the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. However, the latter can be diagnosed at a young age when patients have not yet achieved their pregnancy plans. Dargent first described the vaginal radical trachelectomy for patients with tumors <2 cm. It has since been described a population of low risk of recurrence: patients with tumors <2 cm, without deep stromal infiltration, without lymphovascular invasion (LVSI), and with negative lymph nodes. These patients can benefit from a less radical surgery such as conization or simple trachelectomy with the evaluation of the pelvic node status. Tumors larger than 2 cm have a higher risk of recurrence and their treatment is a challenge. There are currently two options for these patients: abdominal radical trachelectomy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), followed by fertility-sparing surgery. All patients who wish to preserve their fertility must be referred to expert centers.
PubMed: 34768345
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10214825 -
International Journal of Gynecological... Feb 2022To evaluate disease-free survival of cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate disease-free survival of cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009).
METHODS
A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted including patients from the Surgery in Cervical Cancer Comparing Different Surgical Aproaches in Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer (SUCCOR) database with FIGO 2009 IB1 cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. We used propensity score matching to minimize the potential allocation biases arising from the retrospective design. Patients who underwent conization but were similar for other measured characteristics were matched 1:1 to patients from the non-cone group using a caliper width ≤0.2 standard deviations of the logit odds of the estimated propensity score.
RESULTS
We obtained a weighted cohort of 374 patients (187 patients with prior conization and 187 non-conization patients). We found a 65% reduction in the risk of relapse for patients who had cervical conization prior to radical hysterectomy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.75, p=0.007) and a 75% reduction in the risk of death for the same sample (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90, p=0.033). In addition, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery without prior conization had a 5.63 times higher chance of relapse compared with those who had an open approach and previous conization (HR 5.63, 95% CI 1.64 to 19.3, p=0.006). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery with prior conization and those who underwent open surgery without prior conization showed no differences in relapse rates compared with those who underwent open surgery with prior cone biopsy (reference) (HR 1.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 7.76, p=0.349 and HR 2.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 10.86, p=0.106 respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
In this retrospective study, patients undergoing cervical conization before radical hysterectomy had a significantly lower risk of relapse and death.
Topics: Adult; Conization; Databases, Factual; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Middle Aged; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Propensity Score; Retrospective Studies; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 35039455
DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002544